Company Law : The submission of MSME-1 is not only a requirement of the Companies Act, but it also has implications on the Income Tax Act and af...
Company Law : Learn the consequences of not filing MSME Form 1 on time as illustrated by a recent penalty case. Understand the legal requirement...
Company Law : Delve into the conundrum surrounding Section 42(7) of the Companies Act 2013 as the ROC Delhi's adjudication order highlights the ...
Company Law : Explore the game-changing Companies (Listing of Equity Shares in Permissible Jurisdictions) Rules, 2024, paving the way for Indian...
Company Law : Explore penalty order under Sec. 135 of Companies Act, 2013 on AECOM India for CSR non-compliance. Learn consequences, key takeawa...
Company Law : MCA imposes ₹50,000 penalty on Xinpoming Technology for non-filing of DIR-3 KYC under Rule 12A. Appeal can be filed within 60 da...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Sh. Laxit Awla under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013, for exceeding directorship limits. Details on violatio...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court refuses interim relief against NFRA penalties imposed on CAs and CA firm in the Reliance Capital audit lapses cas...
Company Law : The authority imposed penalties after finding the company failed to hold its first board meeting within 30 days of incorporation. ...
Company Law : The issue centered on omission of DIN details by directors in financial filings. The ruling imposed penalties while exempting indi...
Company Law : The ROC imposed penalties for failure to disclose DIN in financial statements, violating Section 158. The key takeaway is that non...
Company Law : Failure to mention DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The authority imposed penalties while limit...
Company Law : Failure to disclose DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The ROC imposed penalties while limiting l...
The authority examined non-filing of charge registration for vehicle loans. It held that registration under company law is mandatory, attracting personal penalties on directors for default.
The order holds that failure to disclose mandatory allottee particulars violates securities allotment rules. Rejection of a regulatory form does not bar imposition of penalty under the Companies Act.
Regulatory correspondence returned undelivered led to action under registered office compliance rules. The ruling underscores that companies must maintain a functional address to receive statutory communications.
The authority held that failure to disclose related party contracts and justifications in the Board’s Report violates statutory transparency norms. A personal monetary penalty was imposed on the responsible director.
Non-compliance with mandatory board composition norms led to heavy penalties. Both the company and the officer were held liable under company law.
The Registrar found that statutory notices and court decrees were returned undelivered, proving non-maintenance of the registered office. The key takeaway is that companies and directors face the maximum penalty for such defaults.
A delay of 13 days in filing Form MGT-15 attracted penalties on both the company and key managerial personnel. The key takeaway is strict enforcement of AGM compliance timelines.
The regulator examined a failure to disclose full allottee particulars in the return of allotment. It held that incomplete disclosures violate securities allotment rules and attract penalty under the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority held that non-receipt of official correspondence proved a breach of the statutory duty to maintain a registered office. Penalties were imposed on the company and its directors under Section 12(8) of the Companies Act.
The Registrar held that failure to disclose the risk management policy in the Board’s Report violated statutory reporting obligations. The key takeaway is that directors remain personally liable even after company strike-off.
